HR-10585-119
Referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)
What it does
This bill would amend the National and Community Service Act of 1990 to direct the Corporation for National and Community Service to establish a Civilian Climate Corps. It would have two parts: a federally run national service program (66 percent of funds) and a grant program for states, tribes, nonprofits, labor organizations, and colleges (34 percent). Participants aged 17 or older, regardless of immigration status, would serve 9 to 12 months on climate, conservation, and disaster projects. Members would receive a living allowance of at least $20 per hour, health coverage, training, and up to $25,000 per term for tuition or student loans. Partner entities would have to pledge labor neutrality and recognize unions with majority sign-up, and contractors would have to pay prevailing wages. At least 50 percent of work and grant funds would have to support under-resourced communities, and other limits apply. The available text is cut off before any funding amounts appear.
Who benefits
Unemployed and underemployed people, including young adults, who would get paid work, training, and education awards. Residents of low-income communities, tribal areas, and disaster-prone areas, where at least half of projects would be based. Unions and registered apprenticeship programs, which get priority and labor-neutrality terms. Historically Black colleges and other minority-serving institutions, which are guaranteed at least 10 percent shares each of college grants. States, tribes, and nonprofit corps that would receive grants (minimum $600,000 per participating state). Domestic manufacturers and local or disadvantaged farmers through Buy American and local food sourcing rules.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, who would bear costs for wages, benefits, and awards that could be large, though the text shown states no total. Existing AmeriCorps-style programs may compete for the same funds and participants, and the same entities generally could not hold overlapping grants. Employers and contractors facing prevailing-wage, labor-neutrality, and union-recognition conditions to work with the Corps, which may raise costs or deter participation. Private-sector employers competing for entry-level labor against a $20-per-hour federal allowance. Opponents of climate-focused federal spending and of service eligibility regardless of immigration status. Rural applicants may be disadvantaged by the focus on under-resourced communities, though the bill also directs rural representation efforts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue the bill pairs two needs: climate and disaster work, and jobs for people facing unemployment. They cite the 23 billion-dollar disasters in 2025 that the bill's findings state cost at least $115 billion, and contend that a $20-per-hour wage, prevailing-wage rules, training, and apprenticeship pipelines would build a skilled workforce. They contend that building on the existing network of state and nonprofit service corps, with 50 percent of work directed to under-resourced communities and tribes, lets the program scale quickly and reach places that market investment overlooks.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill would create a large, costly federal program with no spending total in the text, a $20-per-hour allowance, health coverage, and up to $25,000 per term in education awards. They contend the labor-neutrality and union-recognition conditions favor organized labor, and that eligibility regardless of immigration status and mandated demographic targets raise fairness and legal concerns. They argue that existing programs, state agencies, and private firms already do conservation and weatherization work, so a new corps may duplicate efforts and crowd out private employment.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the Necessary and Proper Clause, with grant conditions governed by South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The labor-neutrality and recognition conditions on federal partners raise questions about preemption by the National Labor Relations Act, as in Building & Construction Trades Council v. Associated Builders (Boston Harbor, 1993), though conditions on federal spending are generally treated differently from regulation. Race- and community-based set-asides for participants and institutions could face equal protection scrutiny under Adarand v. Peña (1995) and SFFA v. Harvard (2023), though the bill's targets are framed by community characteristics.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (the Corporation's CEO and a new Director) gains substantial discretion over program design and grants, while Congress retains control through appropriations and courts can review grant conditions and eligibility rules.
Historical precedent
The Civilian Conservation Corps (1933-1942) employed roughly 3 million young men on conservation work, and AmeriCorps, created by the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, provides a current model of paid national service with education awards.